I continued reading the "The Genius of Photography" book, and it is quite good, although - as I initially thought - a bit incoherent. There were a lot of interesting historical tidbits, for example the invention of the "snapshot" by Eastman Kodak, and the work of Stieglitz in bringing photography to museum walls.
But indeed, photography is hard to define as an art. Anyone can take a great photograph, but making a great body of photography work is another matter. But then who can say what is great and what is not?
What I like about the Genius book is that it writes about topics I have been thinking about but never got around to discussing. The simple, self-evident things about photography, which may not be so self-evident after all.
But returning to my continuing photography hobby, this snapshot was taken today at sunset at the Laajalahti bay. I didn't do any post-processing to this photo, although I at first intended to. I feel this was best the way it was captured.
Today I submitted a column discussing photography (or at least cameras) to a Finnish IT magazine. Initially I had several other topics in mind, but in the end it was easiest to write about photography. However, more about the craft (or science) than the art.
St. Johns River at Mandarin
7 hours ago
2 comments:
I've been thinking about the same thing lately (what's great etc.).
Here's one way to look at it.
Thanks! Good questions, I posted a comment at your site.
Post a Comment